If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

When I say "a lot" I don't mean most; I just mean a few that I've known. I could look up just about anything on Wikipedia and it's probably gonna be accurate. Too bad some people think it's just a website where anybody can write anything on any given subject.

That's the entire concept of the website! You don't have to be any kind of recognized "expert" to write on any given subject.

Taking wikipedia as an absolute reference is like getting your news from Jon Stewart. There's truth to what he says, but is he credible or is he "reporting news" for other purposes? Is wikipedia a pretty good place to START research? Yes. Is it a place you should take as absolute truth? If you did, it would be incredibly risky.

That's the entire concept of the website! You don't have to be any kind of recognized "expert" to write on any given subject.

Taking wikipedia as an absolute reference is like getting your news from Jon Stewart. There's truth to what he says, but is he credible or is he "reporting news" for other purposes? Is wikipedia a pretty good place to START research? Yes. Is it a place you should take as absolute truth? If you did, it would be incredibly risky.

Ok yes, technically it's a website that anyone can edit. Like I said though, they have editors and fact checkers that correct most of the stuff on there if needed. Besides, they link their sources on every page at the bottom so if you don't believe what Wikipedia says, maybe check the NY Times link at the bottom that says the same thing.

Ok yes, technically it's a website that anyone can edit. Like I said though, they have editors and fact checkers that correct most of the stuff on there if needed. Besides, they link their sources on every page at the bottom so if you don't believe what Wikipedia says, maybe check the NY Times link at the bottom that says the same thing.

absolutely true... for the most part. But why not just use the "NYT" as your source instead? That way there's no worry at all

I'm pissed. Yes, the pricetag was high, but surely we could've afforded $24.5m over 6 years...6 years...what we were willing to give Lee.

So now we give up prospects for a Dickey or Shields? **** that.

I'll be even more pissed if we are somehow able to pay Hamilton the $25m he wants. As if a position player that plays 3/4 of a season with a piss poor attitude is somehow more valuable than acquiring top pitchers.

I'm kind of glad we didn't get greinke. Paying someone 24.5 mil a year for not even being a top 10 pitcher in the league isn't good business. Next year kersgaw and verlander will be free agents hopefully and maybe we can snag one of them. We will probably overpay Hamilton now though : (

I'm pissed. Yes, the pricetag was high, but surely we could've afforded $24.5m over 6 years...6 years...what we were willing to give Lee.

So now we give up prospects for a Dickey or Shields? **** that.

I'll be even more pissed if we are somehow able to pay Hamilton the $25m he wants. As if a position player that plays 3/4 of a season with a piss poor attitude is somehow more valuable than acquiring top pitchers.